Is the current political system unsustainably destructive? Where to now?

[basilio]

I have been despairing of our political system for a number of years now with it's nastiness, "gotcha" politics and mindless sloganeering vs thinking through better policies.

Apparently I'm not Robinson Crusoe. Katherine Murphy from The Guardian has written an essay in Meanjin discussing this situation.

15:50


Given we are looking down the barrel of another late-night sitting, I wanted to bring to you a snippet of a longer essay by my colleague Katharine Murphy on political life in the Meanjin. It asks some hard questions on the political culture and life. I often do my own snap surveys when talking to “normal people”, that is outside politics, about the issues. Invariably it descends into complaints about the lack of results and various character readings for the main players. But when I ask them if they would submit their lives to such scrutiny, they invariably say no way. That is a problem. Anyway, here is Katharine.


Australian politics has a secret it can’t talk about. The culture is unhealthy. The demands of parliamentary life are unrelenting. Thinking participants inside the system are starting to feel, after ten years of leadership instability, bitter partisanship and take-no-prisoners hyperactivity, that politics has become not only unsustainable as a vocation, but hostile territory for human beings.


While good people continue to put their heads down and do their best to make a positive contribution to democracy, the environment parliamentarians work in is a pressure cooker, the tone of national affairs is reflexively hostile, trolling and takedowns set the tone of the day, and protagonists are being rewarded for their efficiency at treachery rather than the substance of their contributions.


Earlier this year I wrote a weekend column positing this hostile-for-humans thesis for Guardian Australia, and I was intrigued by the response. Politicians from across the spectrum expressed relief that someone was talking about it. One MP sent me a text shortly after the piece was published that summarised the tenor of the feedback. ‘I liked your questioning about politics as hospitable to humans. I guess we have to continue to act as though it is.’


The column was triggered by a conversation I had with a senior member of the government over the summer break. During this conversation, this person observed his vocation was becoming unsustainable for normal people. By normal people, he meant balanced people. If balanced people could no longer cop the life, the profession would shrink back to representation by a very narrow type of personality—people who live for the brawls and the knockouts, and can’t function without the constant affirmation of being a public figure. We would end up with representation by ideologues, adrenalin junkies and preening show ponies, posturing for a media chorus as unhinged as the political class.


This isn’t just some abstract first-world problem. Politics is fundamentally a people business, and we need good people, talented people, people of ideas and values and commitment to keep volunteering for public life. The health of our democracy depends on it. And right now good people are burning out and ending their political careers early, not because they lack commitment but because the rigours and demands have increased exponentially, particularly over the past decade.


From my vantage point in the system, but also outside it, I can feel the strain in it, which is stretched the tightest it has been in my 20 years of ringside observation. So we need to find voices prepared to tell the truth about contemporary politics. I decided that if most people inside the system couldn’t speak candidly, then I would do what big corporations do when they fear they are losing good people: I’d conduct some exit interviews, and share the impressions.


If good people can’t sustain themselves in public life because it is just too punishing and zero sum—if the opportunity cost of the life of public service is just too high, if a life in politics just doesn’t feel worth the personal sacrifices that are made—then we have a serious problem. The consequences of that really are too dire to contemplate.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...o-pass-after-5bn-extra-promised-politics-live

 

[SirRumpole]

The political arena is dominated by class enemies, the bosses and the working class. They have a natural distrust of each other's policies (while sometimes liking each other personally), and policy really comes second to winning. That's why John Howard squandered the mining boom on family tax benefits and tax free super instead of investing in say a world class broadband system or new power infrastructure.

Basically the Greens have put the cleaners through Labor and Hanson is about to do the same to the LNP , but I wouldn't bet on this creating any change for the better.

First step, clean up the political donations system, it's corrupt and if that is not rectified nothing else matters.

 

[PZ99]

If we think it's destructive today compared to the Hawke / Keating / Howard years then maybe it's a valid point if we discount the 1984 election, the Joh for PM election, the Howard / Peacock rivalry, the transition from Hawke to Keating and the waterfront dispute events.

However it's nothing compared to what happened in the 70's when the Coalition blocked supply in the senate effectively bringing the entire country to a standstill leading to the loans affair and the sacking of the Prime Minister. Union strikes from that era were equally disruptive.

Public servants and contractors used to get bashed up in them daze

One of them even got kidnapped by aliens > http://www.smh.com.au/national/that...rold-holt-vanished-at-sea-20131214-2ze92.html

 

[basilio]

I think it is hard to compare situations from 30-40 years ago and today. Time tends to blur memories.
The point of the article which reflects the views of many politicians is that the overall atmosphere is so hostile and poisonous it is destroying/driving out "good"people. Those left are less interested in creating constructive solutions to any issues and are just nasty pieces of work. In a nutshell anyway.

The issue is that in the end we need quality, constructive people in politics to create and direct good solutions. Otherwise ....we end up with Trump/Abbott politics

 

[PharmBBs]

We have mandatory voting coupled with universal education plus preferential voting. I think that's a good system compared to other countries. Mandatory voting means the silent majority is always heard. Universal education means the majority of plebs vote with at least a basic understanding of the consequences of their vote and party policies. And preferential voting means that your vote is never wasted.

Most western "democracies" don't even have mandatory voting let alone preferential voting. Let's look at a couple of examples:
US - they have the electoral college which isn't even obligated to vote with the people, and no preferential voting.
France - Two rounds of voting with the last one being winner takes all. Not mandatory and not preferential.

So, I'm pretty happy overall with our system. It could be a lot worse.

 

[basilio]

Interesting thoughts PharmBBs. I agree with you that electoral system is pretty good in Australia. I also believe it is well managed with little risk of interference.

My concern is with the divisiveness of the current political process and strain this is putting on politicians trying to come up with constructive solutions. Politics(in my mind) should be about finding common ground, respecting a range of views and basing policies on accepted facts. I have watched quite excellent policy outcomes achieved with mutual good will and thoughtful analysis of the situation.

But not at the moment.

 

[SirRumpole]

But not at the moment.

Both parties are to blame. Abbott started it with his "just say no" non-policy, and Labor followed on with their obstinate "our way or the highway" stand on school funding.

It makes you wonder what they are playing at when you see Pyne and Albanese playing "best of friends" with Kochie, and then going for the jugular in Parliament.

 

[PZ99]

It makes you wonder what they are playing at when you see Pyne and Albanese playing "best of friends" with Kochie, and then going for the jugular in Parliament.

They both want Labor to gain Govt

 

[Tisme]

I have watched quite excellent policy outcomes achieved with mutual good will and thoughtful analysis of the situation.

But not at the moment.

That must have been quite a long time ago, because Labor won't forgive the Libs for quite some time over their kindergarten behaviour during the Rudd/Gillard rule.

 

[basilio]

The current concern over people in retirement villages being seen as cash cows by the industry offers an excellent opportunity for across the board political unity. The reality is that older people are generally more conservative. On balance they vote by over 65's would be in favour of Libs/National Party.

However I would suggest that all political parties would like to be seen as supportive of strong and effective legislation that controls the efforts of developers to extract the maximum return from retirement home residents. It will be interesting to see this pans out.

Time for retirement living to meet the fairness test

• Gerard Brody

Retirement is often called the "golden years". If you read the marketing of the large companies that operate retirement villages you'd be led to believe that it's all lawn bowls, cocktails and luxury. The reality can be very different.

As one retiree recently told us: "When I moved in, the reason for that place's existence was residents. Now it's reason for existence is shareholders and there is a huge amount of distrust."

Exploitation at Aveo unacceptable: Minister
Following revelations retirement village operator Aveo ripped off older Australians, the Aged Care minister says all governments need to do more to prevent this happening again.

In Australia, retirement housing is a mess. If you're considering the lifestyle promised by the operators of retirement housing, what you'll soon encounter is needlessly complex contracts and legal arrangements that even lawyers have trouble understanding.

Your unit might be a strata title, licence arrangement, or a lease and loan. You might even be renting the land while owning the mobile home on top of it. The intricate contracts are impenetrable for most people and are cruelly one-sided. When you read them, it's hard to escape the conclusion that these contracts are written deliberately to bamboozle.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/bus...o-meet-the-fairness-test-20170704-gx45xs.html

 

[basilio]

I was reading a piece from "Remembering Bob" - a book written by his daughter.
These comments offer food for thought about the fundamental change in politic today versus 30 years ago.
One of the themes that emerged most forcefully during the public memorial for Dad was a vivid sense of a time when politics was practised intelligently for the good of the whole nation. To borrow from an old Jewish proverb: whenever there are two people in a room, there will be at least three opinions. There will always be fierce differences of opinion across humanity, and “spin” is in our nature, but we are living in a time when some of us raised in relatively secure and (relatively) democratic societies are observing somewhat fearfully the concerted undermining of much of what underpins us.

“Back then” the future mattered, respect and integrity mattered, and facts, imagination, science, accuracy and honesty were all valued. “Truth” as the basis of debate mattered. Our diversity flourished and was celebrated. All manner of pursuits – cultural, educational, imaginative, innovative, traditional – were considered worthy, alongside our sport.

Dad was an outstandingly committed, articulate, skilled and compassionate social democrat

Economics was important, and economic policy was transparently approached by government as crucial in enabling “a fair go for ALL”, so people could make a decent life and be secure in knowing that their children would be educated and other foundational needs would be met. Aspiration was understood as being not only personal but also communal – a shared concern that we were part of a decent society that did right by all its citizens and as part of the international community. Economic matters had not become the abstracted and supposedly apolitical creature that rules us today, whereby all imperatives must themselves suit the mythical beast “The Economy”.

This inversion of reality is itself dangerous and delusional, a myth that has to a large degree obscured our choices, our humanity, concern for others and the care we show “our” planet. Economic activity and policy is always purpose-driven – it is simply a question of what purposes it serves. A decent social democracy requires free, open, informed, rigorous and mostly respectful debate about purpose and vision and means – and Dad was an outstandingly committed, articulate, skilled and compassionate social democrat.

There was an optimism, a coherence, a vision to it all, and a tangible sense that the enterprise of government was on behalf of the whole population. This enterprise was not flawless but was inherently positive and “caring” – and it could in degree be realised; indeed, it was happening. With Dad’s death and at the memorial came a sense of grief that that’s not how it is now.

At depth, we were mourning more than Dad. But rather than despair that those times have inevitably gone, the true thing to do is to understand from history that the pendulum always swings, to take heart from these memories, and to grow that vision and act inclusively with others towards a society and future that serves all who live in it.

https://www.theguardian.com/austral...ralia-that-was-we-were-mourning-more-than-dad